inspector: initial support storage inspection

[islandryu]

As shown in the image, this change is intended to enable inspecting storage in DevTools.

Currently, there is no feature to automatically record storage. Instead, storage data is registered using the DOMStorage.registerStorage method.

DOMStorage.registerStorage({
  isLocalStorage,
  storageMap: {
    key1: 'value1',
    key2: 'value2',
    [1]: 2,
    [true]: 'booleanKey',
  },
});

If this change is acceptable, I am planning to submit the following changes to Chrome DevTools.

https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/devtools/devtools-frontend/+/7274801

[nodejs-github-bot]

Review requested:

• @nodejs/config
• @nodejs/gyp
• @nodejs/inspector

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 63.75000% with 87 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 88.50%. Comparing base (1cd3ddf) to head (19be6a8).
⚠️ Report is 208 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/inspector/dom_storage_agent.cc	50.70%	57 Missing and 13 partials ⚠️
src/inspector/inspector_object_utils.cc	77.55%	3 Missing and 8 partials ⚠️
src/inspector/storage_agent.cc	70.00%	3 Missing ⚠️
src/inspector/notification_emitter.cc	71.42%	0 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
src/inspector_agent.cc	95.00%	0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #61139      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   88.53%   88.50%   -0.04%     
==========================================
  Files         703      708       +5     
  Lines      208260   208778     +518     
  Branches    40160    40268     +108     
==========================================
+ Hits       184384   184774     +390     
- Misses      15882    16012     +130     
+ Partials     7994     7992       -2     

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
lib/inspector.js	97.22% <100.00%> (+0.12%)	⬆️
src/inspector/network_agent.cc	61.67% <ø> (-1.81%)	⬇️
src/inspector/notification_emitter.h	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/node_options.cc	77.82% <ø> (-0.04%)	⬇️
src/node_options.h	97.89% <ø> (+0.03%)	⬆️
src/inspector_agent.cc	80.65% <95.00%> (+0.70%)	⬆️
src/inspector/notification_emitter.cc	71.42% <71.42%> (ø)
src/inspector/storage_agent.cc	70.00% <70.00%> (ø)
src/inspector/inspector_object_utils.cc	77.55% <77.55%> (ø)
src/inspector/dom_storage_agent.cc	50.70% <50.70%> (ø)

... and 89 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[legendecas]

I wonder how the Node.js APIs like node:sqlite would be represented on the devtools frontend. Showing it as either local storage or session sotrage would be confusing IMO.

/cc @nodejs/sqlite for opinion.

[louwers]

@legendecas It would not make sense to include it, because unlike local storage or session storage, SQLite databases need to be explicitly opened. There is no global SQLite database.

[legendecas]

So this feature should only be enabled for localStorage as far as I could tell.

The local storage file path is set via cli --localstorage-file=file so I think the origin of the storage could be pointed to a file URL to this file path.

[islandryu]

I agree with limiting this implementation to localStorage.

If we want to support other storage types in the future, I think we should either use the existing IndexedDB DevTools domain
https://chromedevtools.github.io/devtools-protocol/tot/IndexedDB/

or add a dedicated section in DevTools for them.